Florence Rejects Smoking Ban
In a move that surprised a lot of people, the Florence City Council voted 5 - 0 to reject a smoking ban. With this vote, however, the Florence City Council has voiced its opinion in a symbolic way. If the Northern Kentucky Counties of Boone, Kenton and Campbell join together with the proposed smoking ban, all public places would become smoke free. This would affect all restaurants and bars.
While a smoking ban is a good idea for those that don’t smoke, what about the businesses that would be affected by a blanket policy smoking ban? How many bars, restaurants, bowling alleys, etc. would be forced to close because of the loss of patrons that choose to smoke?
While non-smokers are overwhelmingly in favor of a smoking ban, what about the rights of smokers and business owners that would be affected by the smoking ban? Is a “blanket policy” smoking ban that would affect all restaurants, bars, etc. the best policy?
While the official vote has not been cast yet, there seems to be a large amount of support in the Northern Kentucky area for a smoking ban. If Boone County were to pass a smoking ban, Florence would still be obligated to follow that ban due to the county law taking precedence over the City of Florence.
As time passes, more and more communities are getting wise to the “sky is falling” and name calling tactics being used by the well paid ban lobbyists. Many restaurants are going smoke free by the choice of their customers and owners anyway, no ban needed. Many small bars here in Chicago have to ignore the ban to keep their customers and Illinois casinos are laying off workers as gamblers go across the river to smoking casinos. Ohio was misled by lobbyists who promised the ban would not apply to private clubs and bars. Once any ban is in place, the lobbyist will keep returning to make them cover more places. They are busy in Colorado trying to get special state laws passed to eliminate smoking in ONE casino that qualifid as exempt.
An alternative to smoking bans
It is clear that separation of smokers from non-smokers combined with air exchange technology is a complete solution to this largely artificial problem. All it takes is regulating authorities setting the standards for indoor air quality on passive smoke, and the technology does the rest. Such air quality standards are common in industrial and environmental contexts. But, to date, no country in the world has set them for smoking areas. It seems clear that the reasons are not scientific, nor are they economic or technical: they are political.
If we accept that small risk elevations based on flimsy evidence really constitute a danger for public health, then we should literally stop existing to protect our existence.
As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.
Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking. Smoke from tobacco is a statistically insignificant health risk.
Thomas Laprade